Exploration and Development of the National Conflict Studies Institute Concept

Transcription

1 Prepared for: Defense Threat Reduction Agency Advanced Systems and Concepts Office

2 PREFACE March 22, 2005 This study has several purposes: (1) to develop a concept for a national level conflict studies institute; (2) to provide a summary of related government-funded academic and research institutions; (3) to define the focus, functions, likely initiatives, research thrusts, outreach efforts, facilities, and faculty skill sets of the proposed institute; (4) to define the placement of the proposed institute and its relationships with existing organizations; and (5) to address linkages or benefits to the Department of Defense. The study was conducted under the sponsorship of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency Advanced Systems and Concepts Office. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) was founded in 1998 to integrate and focus the capabilities of the Department of Defense that address the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) threat. To assist the Agency in its primary mission, the Advanced Systems and Concepts Office (ASCO) develops and maintains an evolving analytical vision of necessary and sufficient capabilities to protect United States (U.S.) and allied forces and citizens from WMD attack. The ASCO is also charged by the Department of Defense and the U.S. Government generally to identify gaps in these capabilities and initiate programs to fill them. It also provides support to the Threat Reduction Advisory Committee (TRAC), and its Panels, with timely, high quality research. Lt Col Donald Culp, USAF, served as the ASCO supervising project officer. Washington Safety Management Solutions LLC (WSMS) served as the principal investigator and provided analytical support to the DTRA ASCO in conducting the attached study titled Exploration and Development of the National via DTRA01-00-D-0002 Task Order 0008 Rapid Response Tasking No The WSMS project lead and participating subject matter experts were: John Wood Russ Harris Arch Turrentine WSMS Project Lead WSMS ARTICS, Inc. This report should be of value to the Department of Defense, Department of State, national security community, government training and education institutions, public universities, and non-government organizations. The publication of this document does not indicate endorsement by the Department of Defense, nor should the contents be construed as reflecting the official position of the sponsoring agency. i

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study was initiated based on the premises that performance of the national security enterprise warrants improvement; that there is a need for an integrated, multi-disciplinary academic commitment to countering new and emerging security threats; and that a National Conflict Studies Institute could provide the organization and capabilities to engender an agile, self learning, and adaptive enterprise effort analogous to the manner in which colleges conduct systematic studies of warfare to support the military services. Accordingly, the effort was focused on defining a construct for a National Conflict Studies Institute rather than defending a case for change. Concentrated, comprehensive, and coordinated research, education, and outreach programs engaging the best efforts of the U.S. government, academia, international agencies, and the private sector as they relate to international and domestic security and modern interstate or intrastate conflict were envisioned as core elements of the National Conflict Studies Institute. These programs would be structured to improve performance of the national security enterprise and evolve into an agile, adaptive effort capable of dealing with any number of possible futures. Properly crafted, such an endeavor would be expected to support the U.S. government s needs and requirements for sustaining U.S. national security into an uncertain and rapidly changing future by assisting the U.S. government to: Understand and anticipate the sources and causes of conflict, the domestic and international consequences of conflict, practical solutions to prevent or mitigate conflict, and sustainable practices to preclude conflict. Support the development of a long term national strategy for dealing with all forms of modern interstate and intrastate conflict. Enhance networking, communication, and coordination among military and civilian resources, domestically and internationally. Develop future generations of practitioners and leaders who have matured through a common experience of collaborative research and problem-solving, and are prepared to apply those lessons. The study started under the assumption that the organization would be referred to as a National Conflict Studies Institute (NCSI). However, the NCSI title was abandoned in favor of National Security Institute (NSI) to avoid the appearance that it would be a Department of Defense centric organization and unintentionally discourage involvement by non-government organizations, the international community, and academia. The participation of these organizations is vital to the success of the endeavor. There are hundreds, if not, thousands, of existing organizations and institutions conducting education, research, or outreach programs associated with conflict studies. The initial intent of the study was to examine U.S. government funded research, education, and outreach programs to assess the suitability of their funding profiles and structures for supporting a National Security Institute. However, distinctions between government funded academic and research programs and other efforts are not entirely ii

4 clear in many cases due to the myriad mechanisms through which institutions and organizations can secure U.S. government funds. Consequently, three U.S. government sponsored primary training institutions, the Department of Defense Professional Military Education programs, Department of Homeland Security Centers of Excellence, Federally Funded Research and Development Centers, three federally funded institutions, six international organizations, fifteen U.S. non-government organizations, and fifteen U.S. university based programs were selected for examination. The programs that were selected as benchmark models for a National Security Institute were the National Security Education Program administered by the National Defense University for the Secretary of Defense and the Homeland Security Institute operated by the ANSER Institute for the Science and Technology Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security. After developing goals and objectives for a National Security Institute, the project team concluded that the best construct for the Institute would be a small brick and mortar headquarters activity that serves as the nucleus for the effort and coordinates activities in a manner analogous to the operation of the National Security Education Program and the Homeland Security Institute. The National Security Institute would operate under the oversight of an Interagency Steering Group chaired by a senior member of the National Security Council (NSC) staff. The following observations and conclusions emerged during the study: Observations Establishing a National Security Institute to support and serve the needs of the national security community will probably require a strong mandate from the highest levels of government. A directive from the President, together with a strong endorsement by the Congress, will likely be required to generate the interagency momentum and resolve to take the risk of initiating yet another fundamental organizational change, alongside the other paradigm-shifting changes implemented following the events of September 11, Maintaining a collaborative, and cooperative interagency effort to create and sustain a National Security Institute with the desired attributes will produce unprecedented changes in bureaucratic practices and present numerous challenges due to the fundamental nature of government institutions. Organizations structured along functional and geographic lines tend to develop their own mission-centric cultures, management styles, and path-to-success personnel assignment profiles. Consequently, sustained investment in the conduct of coordinated, collaborative research and education will be challenging to establish and nurture iii

5 A National Security Institute will likely need to be virtual in some respects in order to tie together key capabilities of multiple universities and organizations in a way that achieves the critical mass of skills and capabilities necessary to comprise the supporting infrastructure for the national security enterprise. A broad range of experts in behavioral sciences, history, science, technology, modeling, and simulation will be needed. For example, the need to support language and culture studies in Arabic, Mandarin Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Russian, Hindu, Persian Farsi, Turkish, Japanese, Pashto, Kurdish, Spanish, Turkmen, Urdu, Uzbek, West Punjabi, and others in itself exceeds the individual capabilities of all the organizations and institutions explored during this study. Conclusions The National Security Education Program (NSEP) administered by the National Defense University under the direction of the Secretary of Defense is a viable existing program on which to base the education programs for a National Security Institute. In 1991 the U.S. Congress initiated a sustained national priority and academic commitment to counter new and emerging threats to national security through the NSEP with oversight provided by a National Security Education Board (NSEB) comprised of appointed members from the interagency, academia, and the private sector. The legislation that created the NSEP established broad and comprehensive goals and objectives for establishing and sustaining the infrastructure needed to develop people who could in turn improve performance of the national security enterprise. The goals and objectives established by Congress for the National Security Education Program (NSEP) closely approximate those desired for the envisioned National Security Institute. The NSEP has evolved iteratively with expert and Congressional oversight and is postured to serve as a nucleus for a National Security Institute. Despite the fact that this approach will require additional resources to expand the NSEP and capture all the attributes of the envisioned National Security Institute, it may be particularly effective for establishing a National Security Institute since the U.S. Congress has already shown strong support for the NSEP concept and considerable costs have been expended to support the effort. Using the National Defense University to host an expanded National Security Education program (NSEP) that will evolve into a National Security Institute may be viewed in some quarters as prescribing an overly Department of Defensecentric role to the initiative. In actuality, the National Defense University is highly respected throughout the national security community; maintains an effective, active network of interagency contacts; and is soundly positioned to coordinate the startup and sustenance of a comprehensive National Security Institute. iv

6 The Homeland Security Institute (HSI) administered by the ANSER Institute for the Science and Technology Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security is a suitable model for the research and outreach efforts of a National Security Institute. A similar approach using a small brick and mortar headquarters could be structured to serve as the integrating and coordinating entity for National Security Institute research and outreach program execution. A hybrid approach combining the best attributes of the National Security Education Program (NSEP) and the Homeland Security Institute (HSI) as models would be a viable option for nurturing a National Security Institute. Using a hybrid model would leverage the existing investment that has been made in the NSEP and adopt the HSI outsourcing approach to research and analytical support. The U.S. Congress has already directed the Department of Defense to assume the lead role for enhancing national security education through the National Security Education Program such that Department of Defense leadership in establishing a National Security Institute would be a logical continuance of current initiatives. Given its substantive interest in the activities of a National Security Institute, and the expectation that it will be a major provider of needed resources, it would be anticipated that the Department of Defense will play a leading role in developing a National Security Institute. v

7 Contents Preface... i Executive Summary... ii SECTION 1 SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY... 1 Background... 1 Tasking and Purpose... 2 How the Study was Conducted... 3 SECTION 2 RELATED ACADEMIC AND RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS AND U. S. GOVERNMENT EFFORTS... 5 Academic and Research Institutions... 5 Related U.S. Government Legislation, Initiatives, and Efforts... 9 National Security Education Act of 1991 (P.L ) National Security Education Program (NSEP) Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (P.L ) National Flagship Language Initiative (NFLI) National Security Language Act (H.R. 3676) National Security Education Program Enhancement Act of 2004 (H.R. 4574) Stabilization and Reconstruction Civilian Management Act of 2004 (S. 2127) SECTION 3 FOCUS AND FUNCTIONS OF A NATIONAL SECURITY INSTITUTE Systems Approach to Defining and Implementing a National Security Institute Identification of Stakeholders Considered Approach Goals and Objectives of the Institute Focus and Functions of the Institute Research Programs Educational Programs Outreach Program Networking and Collaboration SECTION 4 STRUCTURE, PARTRICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS, AND PLACEMENT Structure Participating Organizations Placement Facilities and Faculty Skill Sets SECTION 5 OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS vi

8 APPENDICES Appendix A - Academic and Research Institutions Engaged in the Study of Interstate and Intrastate Violent and Armed Conflict... A-1 Appendix B - National Security Education Act of 1991 (As Ammended)... B-1 Appendix C - Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year C-1 Appendix D - National Security Language Act... D-1 Appendix E - Appendix F - TABLES National Security Education Program Enhancement Act of E-1 Stabilization and Reconstruction Civilian Management Act of F-1 Table 1 U.S. Government Sponsored Primary Training Institutions... 5 Table 2 Department of Defense Professional Military Education Programs... 6 Table 3 Department of Homeland Security Centers of Excellence... 6 Table 4 Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) (R & D Labs/Study & Analysis Centers/Systems Engineering & Integration Centers)... 7 Table 5 Federally Funded Institutions... 7 Table 6 Selected International Organizations... 8 Table 7 Selected U.S. Non-Profit Institution Programs... 8 Table 8 Selected U.S. University Based Programs... 9 Table 9 Value Propositions for National Security Institute Stakeholders Table 10 Potential Organizations to Participate in a National Security Institute Table 11 Comparison of Attributes of Potential National Security Institute Host Organizations Table 12 Comparison of National Security Institute (NSI) and National Security Education Program (NSEP) Features Table 13 Comparison of Features Desired in the National Security Institute (NSI) Education Program to the National Security Education Program (NSEP) FIGURES Figure 1: Functions and Roles of the National Security Institute Figure 2: Key Attributes for Success of a National Security Institute Figure 3: Basic Functionality of the National Security Institute vii

9 SECTION 1 SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY BACKGROUND Current and future threats to national and global security present challenges that cross the traditionally perceived boundaries of distinction between military and non-military roles and functions as evidenced by lessons learned during the global war on terrorism, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and post conflict operations in the Balkans, East Timor, Haiti, and Somalia, among others. The events and activities associated with conflict resolution and sustenance of U.S. national security are multi-disciplinary in nature and can not be easily separated into discrete functions. Diplomacy, dissuasion, prevention, preemption, warfare, and stabilization activities may be more effectively executed as integral efforts in support of higher objectives for stability and long term security. Integrated execution of these myriad activities will require unprecedented cooperation and collaboration among U.S. federal, state, and local agencies, foreign governments, and international agencies. However, the U.S. national security enterprise is not optimally coordinated either internally or externally to deal with changing and evolving threats in an integrated fashion despite the fact that there are many research and education efforts in progress by federal agencies, non-government organizations, academia, and the private sector to improve national security. One of several problems with these efforts is that they are often conducted in isolation from other efforts producing a tendency to develop initiatives that are sub-optimized to suit the capabilities and interests of the sponsoring organization. Accordingly, enhanced cooperation among U.S. agencies, foreign governments, and international agencies is needed to develop and sustain requisite relationships, plans, and counter measures to nurture and sustain stability and security. Also, future generations of leaders in key federal government agencies must be educated to understand challenges to national security and to work within the interagency environment to collaborate and cooperate with the myriad organizations involved. Failure to take innovative action to improve the national security enterprise will waste opportunities to eliminate sub-optimization of myriad unilateral efforts within the U.S. government and among non government organizations, academia, and the private sector; establish a basis for collective conflict prevention, dissuasion, and response; broaden the understanding of foreign cultures and translate this knowledge into effective policies and capabilities; better prepare to adapt to and deal with the changes that will accompany a range of possible futures; and develop the infrastructure to generate and sustain a well prepared supply of national security professionals, as well as educated political and private sector leaders. Additionally, sustaining the status quo increases the likelihood that precursors of 9/11 type events will be overlooked or misinterpreted and that responses will not be comprehensive and effective. The creation of "colleges" to further the systematic study of warfare is an established practice among the branches of the military, culminating perhaps with the creation of the 1

10 National Defense University. The value of these institutions comes from the formal study of the adversary and supporting research on improved strategies, concepts, and operational methods. Accordingly, it is appropriate to consider a corresponding academic commitment that supports and nurtures a sustained and effective national priority in countering new and emerging threats to U.S. national security with an integrated and multi-disciplinary approach recognizing that the nature of conflict in the 21st century and the current global security environment represent a substantially different set of challenges not well addressed by current strategic and operational thinking and that the U.S. response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack dramatically altered governmental structure and policies. TASKING AND PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to develop a concept for a national level "conflict studies" institute, explore options for its structure, and define the community it would serve based on the premises that performance of the national security enterprise warrants improvement; that there is a need for an integrated, multi-disciplinary academic commitment to countering new and emerging security threats; and that a National Conflict Studies Institute could provide the organization and capabilities to engender an agile, self learning, and adaptive enterprise effort analogous to the manner in which colleges conduct systematic studies of warfare to support the military services. Accordingly, the effort was focused on defining a construct for a National Conflict Studies Institute rather than defending a case for change. The proposed national conflict studies institute was envisioned to be an institution that addresses all aspects of modern interstate and intrastate conflict and supports a long-term national strategy for dealing with future conflicts through long-term education and research that benefits all facets (security, legislative, medical, etc.) of the national (federal, state, and local) response. Of particular interest was the integration of efforts associated with countering threats from Weapons of Mass Destruction including the "next generation" of Weapons of Mass Effect. The following specific tasks were included in the overall tasking: Provide a listing and short summary of those government-funded academic and research institutions currently engaged in the study of interstate and intrastate violent and armed conflict. Include a brief explanation of their mission, customers, research, education focus, and contact information. Define the focus and functions of the proposed institute. Analysis should address such items as its vision, mission, goals and objectives, primary academic role and focus, likely initiatives and research thrusts, valuable outreach or communication efforts, facilities and faculty skill sets. Define the placement of the proposed institute within the U.S. public sector and its relationships with existing organizations for it to best address the security, structural, social, and technical challenges associated with future conflicts, and to 2

11 serve the needs of the federal, state and local government levels. Include optimum location and recommended sponsor. Without excluding focus on the greater customer set, specifically address linkages or benefits to Department of Defense elements, to include the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Combatant Commanders, Joint Staff, uniformed services, and Department of Defense Agencies. Moreover, examine and define the notion for the Department of Defense to take a leadership role in any such institute. HOW THE STUDY WAS CONDUCTED In order to execute the assigned tasking, the project team focused on the following: Delineating desired improvements in execution of the national security enterprise. Identifying the preferred attributes of a new organizational construct that could achieve implementation of the desired improvements, including identifying some notional concepts for how these improvements could be achieved. Determining options for establishing a National Conflict Studies Institute (NCSI), e.g., defining the principal stakeholders in the initiative and identifying potential organizational structures and locations for such an enterprise. In order to accomplish these objectives, the project team utilized a number of different resources including interviews, open source literature reviews, and brainstorming sessions among the project team members. Interviews were conducted in person with representatives from the Advanced Systems and Concepts Office of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA/ASCO), Office of the Secretary of Defense -- Office of Force Transformation (DoD/OFT), and the National Defense University (NDU) Institute for Strategic Studies. Other organizations contacted included: Massachusetts Institute of Technology o Security Studies Program The Ohio State University o National Academic Consortium for Homeland Security Program for International and Homeland Security National Academy of Sciences The project team also gathered and reviewed relevant policy guidance, instructions and documents relating to domestic and international institutions and universities that sponsor or conduct peace and conflict studies and other cross-cutting efforts. Thereafter, the project team reviewed the National Security Education Act of 1991 (P.L ), the September 2003 National Security Education Program (NSEP) Report to Congress created in response to Section 334 of P.L , the Intelligence Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2003, the NSEP Analysis of Federal Language Needs; and the mission of the National Defense University. All of these resources were employed to accomplish the specific tasking delineated in the previous section. As research progressed, it quickly became apparent that the scope of the desired improvements in the national security apparatus encompassed much more than just conflict studies. In this vein, new nomenclature (National Security Institute) was adopted 3

12 in lieu of NCSI to more accurately capture the scope of the postulated mission of a new national security enterprise that would optimize the accomplishment of national security objectives. The term NCSI was thus abandoned. Each of the study objectives and the associated results are discussed at length in the following sections. 4

13 SECTION 2 RELATED ACADEMIC AND RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS AND U. S. GOVERNMENT EFFORTS ACADEMIC AND RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS There are hundreds, if not thousands, of domestic and international institutions and organizations conducting training, education, research, and outreach efforts in the areas of interstate and intrastate conflict. For purposes of this study, the initial intent was to explore the research, education, and outreach efforts of U.S. government-funded institutions already in operation along with their funding profiles and organization structures and then assess their relevance to the National Security Institute concept. However, it promptly became clear to the project team that distinctions between government-funded academic and research institutions are not always easily discerned because there are numerous ways to secure program funds from the U.S. government. Funds can be obtained through grants from a number of U.S. agencies and departments. Funds may also be obtained through contracted activities to provide services or conduct specific research. Programs, organizations, or institutions listed in Tables 1 though 5 were selected for examination because they are entirely government-funded and support Department of Defense Professional Military Education, deliver specific government-sponsored training, or support government-sponsored research in areas of interest. Programs, organizations, or institutions listed in Tables 6 though 8 were later selected to represent a sample of the wide variety of peace and conflict studies activities already established and producing notable work. Synopses of the missions, research programs, education programs, and outreach programs of the identified institutions and organizations, as applicable, are provided in Appendix A. The institutions and organizations selected for examination should not be construed as a complete listing but rather as a sample of the wide range of activities currently ongoing in the areas of peace and conflict studies and research. This sample was selected to support the definition of the envisioned National Conflict Studies Institute and to shape the discussion of how the Institute would fit into the environment of ongoing initiatives. A more extensive list is maintained by the United States Institute for Peace and can be accessed on the World Wide Web at Table 1: U.S. Government Sponsored Primary Training Institutions Program/Organization Defense Language Institute National Defense University (NDU) School for National Security Executive Education Foreign Service Institute Sponsor and Customers Department of Defense and interagency Department of Defense and interagency Department of State and interagency 5

14 Table 2: Department of Defense Professional Military Education Programs Program/Organization Air Command and Staff College Air War College Army Command and Staff College College of Naval Command and Staff College of Naval Warfare Marine Corps Command and Staff College National Defense University (NDU) Capstone Flag/General Officer Course Industrial College of the Armed Forces National War College Joint Forces Staff College U.S. Army War College Comments Intermediate level military education Senior level military education Intermediate level military education Intermediate level military education Senior level military education Intermediate level military education Capstone military education Senior level military education Senior level military education Intermediate level military education Senior level military education Table 3: Department of Homeland Security Centers of Excellence Program/Organization Homeland Security Center for Behavioral and Social Aspects of Terrorism and Counter- Terrorism Homeland Security Center for Food Protection and Defense Homeland Security Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events (CREATE) Homeland Security Cooperative Center of Excellence for Micobial Risk Assessment (MRA) Homeland Security Institute Homeland Security National Center for Foreign Animal and Zoonotic Disease Defense Host Under development by the Department of Homeland Security University of Minnesota and affiliates University of Southern California and affiliates Under development by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Homeland Security Analytical Services, Inc. (ANSER) Texas A&M University and affiliates 6

15 Table 4: Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) (R & D Labs/Study & Analysis Centers/Systems Engineering & Integration Centers) Program/Organization Aerospace FFFRDC Ames Laboratory Argonne National Laboratory Arroyo Center (RAND Corp) Brookhaven National Laboratory C3I FFRDC Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Institute for Defense Analyses Studies and Analyses FFRDC (IDA) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Lincoln Laboratory Los Alamos National Laboratory National Defense Research Institute (RAND Corp) Oak Ridge National Laboratory Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Project Air Force (RAND Corp) Sandia National Laboratories Savannah River National Laboratory Science and Technology Policy Institute (RAND Corp) Sponsor Department of Defense (Air Force) Department of Energy Department of Energy Department of Defense (Army) Department of Energy Department of Defense (SecDef) Department of Defense (Navy) Department of Energy Department of Energy Department of Energy Department of Defense (SecDef) Department of Energy Department of Defense (Air Force) Department of Energy Department of Defense (SecDef) Department of Energy Department of Energy Department of Defense (Air Force) Department of Energy Department of Energy National Science Foundation Table 5: Federally Funded Institutions Program/Organization United State Agency for International Development (USAID) United States Institute of Peace Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Focus Conflict, humanitarian assistance, and crisis management projects Peace and conflict studies Conflict prevention and environmental security studies 7

16 Table 6: Selected International Organizations Program/Organization Friedrich Ebert Foundation International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) International Peace Research Institute, Oslo Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Organization for Security Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Focus Forum for dialogue on European/U.S. relations International security studies Violent conflict studies Forum for dialogue among 30 member countries Conflict resolution and prevention projects throughout Eastern Europe and Central Asia International security studies Table 7: Selected U.S. Non-Profit Institution Programs Program/Organization Albert Einstein Institution (AEI) American Association for the Advancement of Science Brookings Institute Carnegie Corporation of New York Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute (CBACI) Council on Foreign Relations Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI) Henry L. Stimson Center Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis (IFPA) Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS) Institute of Public Administration (IPA) National Academy of Sciences (NAS) National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT) Potomac Institute for Policy Studies Focus Policy and outreach programs Promotes international scientific cooperation Foreign policy research and analyses International security analyses International security analyses Government support, trade, and technology programs Foreign policy analyses International affairs analyses International security studies National security and foreign policy analyses Southeast Asia security studies Public sector governance and management Various studies for U.S. government First responder support program International terrorism studies 8

17 Table 8: Selected U.S. University Based Programs Program/Organization Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs Center for Contemporary Conflict (CCC) Center for International Conflict Resolution (CICR) Center for International Development & Conflict Management (CIDCM)/ National Foreign Language Center (NFLC) Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS) Conflict Research Consortium Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution (ICAR) Institute for National Security Studies Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC) International Security Studies Program John C. Whitehead School of Diplomacy and International Relations National Academic Consortium for Homeland Security and Program for International & Homeland Security Public Administration Institute Security Studies Program Host John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University U.S. Naval Post Graduate School Columbia University University of Maryland Stanford University Monterey Institute of International Studies University of Colorado George Mason University Sponsored by the U.S. Air Force University of California Tufts University Undergraduate and graduate degrees in diplomacy and international relations Ohio State University and affiliates Fairleigh Dickinson University Massachusetts Institute of Technology RELATED U.S. GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION, INITIATIVES, AND EFFORTS For purposes of this study, U.S. government initiatives to enhance education and research in areas of critical importance to national security were traced to the David L. Boren National Security Education Act of 1991 (P.L ) that resulted in the establishment of the National Security Education Program. The next major U.S. government initiative identified was the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (P.L ) that established the National Flagship Language Initiative. Additionally, the National Security Language Act, National Security Education Program Enhancement Act of 2004, and Stabilization and Reconstruction Civilian Management Act of 2004 were identified as current legislative initiatives under consideration by Congressional committees. Although efforts at various levels within the interagency to enhance national security education and research are presumed to have occurred throughout the period between ma- 9

18 jor legislative measures, at least some discontinuity is apparent and Congressional involvement in the national security enterprise appears to be associated with singularities such as the 1991 Gulf War and the 9/11 attack on the United States. Various implications can be drawn from such observations with the most obvious being that the process of adapting the national security enterprise effort to emerging threats is not particularly well coordinated and is dependent upon Congress to mandate change after a major event occurs. Further evaluation of these implications exceeds the scope of this study. However, the absence of integration and continuity in education and research efforts related to national security is worthy of note when considering options for establishing an enduring effort to enhance performance of the national security enterprise. The remainder of this section individually discusses the National Security Education Act of 1991, National Security Education Program, Intelligence Authorization Act of 2003, National Flagship Language Initiative, and current legislation because the concepts and efforts directed or proposed therein warrant consideration when refining options for establishing a National Conflict Studies Institute. NATIONAL SECURITY EDUCATION ACT OF 1991 (P.L ) (Appendix B refers) - The David L. Boren National Security Education Act (NSEA) was drafted by Congress in P.L and signed into law by President George H.W. Bush in December In the NSEA of 1991 Congress declared the following findings: 1 1. The security of the United States is and will continue to depend on the ability of the United States to exercise international leadership. 2. The ability of the United States to exercise international leadership is, and will increasingly continue to be, based on the political and economic strength of the United States, as well as on United States military strength around the world. 3. Recent changes in the world pose threats of a new kind to international stability as Cold War tensions continue to decline while economic competition, regional conflicts, terrorist activities, and weapon proliferations have dramatically increased. 4. The future national security and economic well-being of the United States will depend substantially on the ability of its citizens to communicate and compete by knowing the languages and cultures of other countries. 5. The Federal Government has an interest in ensuring that the employees of its departments and agencies with national security responsibilities are prepared to meet the challenges of this changing international environment. 6. The Federal Government also has an interest in taking actions to alleviate the problem of American undergraduate and graduate students being inadequately prepared to meet the challenges posed by increasing global interaction among nations. 1 P.L , Intelligence Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1992, online, January 18,

19 7. American colleges and universities must place a new emphasis on improving the teaching of foreign languages, area studies, and other international fields to help meet those challenges. Congress further described the purpose of the NSEA of 1991 as follows: 1. To provide the necessary resources, accountability, and flexibility to meet the national security education needs of the United States, especially as such needs change over time. 2. To increase the quantity, diversity, and quality of the teaching and learning of subjects in the fields of foreign languages, area studies, and other international fields that are critical to the Nation's interest. 3. To produce an increased pool of applicants for work in the departments and agencies of the United States Government with national security responsibilities. 4. To expand, in conjunction with other Federal programs, the international experience, knowledge base, and perspectives on which the United States citizenry, Government employees, and leaders rely. 5. To permit the Federal Government to advocate the cause of international education. Accordingly, the NSEA of 1991 directed the Secretary of Defense to carry out a program for: Awarding scholarships to undergraduate students who are United States citizens in order to enable such students to study, for at least one academic semester, in foreign countries that are critical countries. Awarding fellowships to graduate students whoo Are United States citizens to enable such students to pursue education in the United States in the disciplines of foreign languages, area studies, and other international fields that are critical areas of those disciplines. o Enter into an agreement to work for an agency or office of the Federal Government or in the field of education in the area of study for which the fellowship was awarded. Awarding grants to institutions of higher education to enable such institutions to establish, operate, or improve programs in foreign languages, area studies, and other international fields that are critical areas of those disciplines. The program started in 1992 as the National Security Education Program and was funded by the National Security Education Trust Fund established under the NSEA of The Secretary of Defense was directed to pursue an annual goal of allocating about one-third of the trust fund award monies to each of the three award categories. The legislation also established a National Security Education Board (NSEB) composed of the following individuals or the representatives of such individuals: 1. The Secretary of Defense who serves as the chairman of the Board. 2. The Secretary of Education. 3. The Secretary of State. 11

20 4. The Secretary of Commerce. 5. The Director of Central Intelligence. 6. The Director of the United States Information Agency. 7. Four individuals appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and who are experts in the fields of international, language, and area studies education. The NSEB performs the following functions: 1. Develops criteria for awarding scholarships, fellowships, and grants under the NSEA of Provides for wide dissemination of information regarding the activities assisted under the NSEA of Establishes qualifications for students desiring scholarships or fellowships, and institutions of higher education desiring grants under the NSEA of 1991 including, in the case of students desiring a scholarship or fellowship, a requirement that the student have a demonstrated commitment to the study of the discipline for which the scholarship or fellowship is to be awarded. 4. Makes recommendations to the Secretary of Defense regarding: a. Which countries are not emphasized in United States study abroad programs, such as countries in which few United States students are studying, and are, therefore, critical countries for the purposes of the NSEA of b. Which areas within the disciplines described in the NSEA of 1991 are areas of study in which United States students are deficient in learning and are, therefore, critical areas within those disciplines. c. Which areas within the disciplines described in the NSEA of 1991 are areas in which United States students, educators, and Government employees are deficient in learning and in which insubstantial numbers of United States institutions of higher education provide training and are, therefore, critical areas within those disciplines. d. How students desiring scholarships or fellowships can be encouraged to work for an agency or office of the Federal Government involved in national security affairs or national security policy upon completion of their education. e. Review the administration of the program required under the NSEA of NATIONAL SECURITY EDUCATION PROGRAM (NSEP) The NSEP began in 1992 under the direction of the Secretary of Defense in response to the NSEA of In 1998 the Secretary of Defense designated the President of National Defense University (NDU) to oversee the program initiated under the NSEA of The program is intended to address national needs for expertise in languages and areas critical to the broad national security community. Its major objectives are currently identified as: 1. Develop a pool of language capable regional experts in various fields of study available for employment with federal national security agencies. 12

21 2. Enhance the capacity of U.S. universities to teach key languages and regional studies. NSEP legislation requires award recipients to seek work for the federal government in an area related to national security. NSEP is the only federally funded effort focused on issues of language proficiency, national security, and the federal workforce. All NSEP award recipients incur an obligation to seek employment with an agency or office of the federal government involved in national security affairs. 2 INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 (P.L ) (Appendix C refers) P.L directed the following actions affecting national security education: 1. The Director of Central Intelligence was directed to carry out a program to provide scholarships and work-study for individuals pursuing graduate degrees in science and technology fields identified as appropriate to meet future intelligence community needs for qualified scientists and engineers. 2. The David L. Boren National Security Education Act of 1991 was amended to direct the Secretary of Defense to provide for the admission of award recipients to the Foreign Language Center of the Defense Language Institute. 3. The Secretary of Defense was directed to establish a program of awarding grants to institutions of higher education to carry out a National Flagship Language Initiative for training students to achieve advanced levels of proficiency in languages identified as critical to U.S. national security interests. NATIONAL FLAGSHIP LANGUAGE INITIATIVE (NFLI) Since 2002 the NFLI has been executed through a working partnership and grant between the NSEP and the National Foreign Language Center at the University of Maryland. Through the NFLI, the NSEP has established national flagship programs across the U.S. These programs, coupled with directed and targeted fellowships for individual students, have begun to produce graduates, many of whom will be candidates for employment with agencies and offices of the federal government, across a broad range of disciplines with advanced levels of proficiency in languages critical to national security. The NFLI is focusing initially on the following critical languages: 3 Arabic (including dialects) Korean 2 National Security Education Program Report to Congress, September 2003, online, January 19, National Defense University, National Flagship Language Initiative (NFLI): Addressing National Needs for Language Proficient Professionals, online, January 19,

22 Chinese (Mandarin) Persian Hindi Russian Japanese Turkish The major focus of NFLI is to establish the field-wide and institutional infrastructure that will support the production of advanced language-proficient students in languages critical to U.S. national security. Through a combination of resident campus curricula and overseas studies, each flagship program offers intermediate to advanced level students a full-time, one- to two-year program of study designed to achieve professional proficiency in the targeted language. Recruitment and development of candidates for employment with the federal government who are proficient in languages critical to national security is a critical objective of the NFLI. Accordingly, the NFLI is developing and implementing methods to attract students from a wide array of sources including: 1. Current students at the flagship institutions seeking professional degrees. 2. Students recruited from the geographic proximity of flagship institutions. 3. Students recruited from other U.S. colleges and universities. 4. Current federal employees whose expenses will be paid directly to the flagship institution by the sending federal organization. Programs under the NFLI include: 1. Arabic for Interactive Communication (AFIC) Program at the Center for Arabic Study Abroad of the American University in Cairo - The AFIC program is guided by a steering committee of leading Arabic scholars from across the U.S. and has initiated a program of intensive advanced Arabic study overseas at the American University in Cairo. Efforts are also underway to expand the overseas program to include Arabic language study at the University of Damascus. In addition to overseas study, the AFIC program is conducting research and development projects to apply advances in technology and general language learning practices to improve U.S. Arabic instruction programs such that increased numbers of highly proficient students will be produced for inclusion in the overseas program. 2. Chinese Flagship Center at Brigham Young University (BYU) - The Chinese Flagship Program at BYU is targeted to upper-intermediate and advanced speakers of Mandarin Chinese and seeks to move these students to a superior level of proficiency. Upon completion of the first year of study at BYU, NFLI students are transferred to Nanjing University in China where they continue language learning coupled with other professional and internship experiences. 14

23 3. Korean Flagship Program at the University of Hawaii at Manoa (UHM) - The Korean Flagship Program at UHM offers students with advanced Korean language proficiency an opportunity to undertake a program of intensive, taskbased language instruction, with specialized options in their chosen career fields. A full academic year at UHM is followed by a year of study at Korean University in Seoul that includes professional and internship experiences under Korean peer tutors. 4. Korean Flagship Program at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) - The Korean Flagship Program at UCLA focuses on academic and professional level reading, listening, and speaking skills. Courses cover topics on Korean civilization and cultures such as business, health, law, and the arts. The program includes individual mentoring and internships. Students who attend the UCLA program also participate in the overseas training education offered under the Korean Flagship Program at UHM. 5. National Flagship Initiative for Russian at the St. Petersburg University of Russia - Through the American Councils for International Education, the NFLI initiated a language program at St. Petersburg University in Russia for students already at a more advanced level of proficiency. The NSEP is currently working to establish U.S.-based infrastructure in Russian to insure a continuing flow of qualified candidates for the overseas residence portion of the instruction. To date NSEP has supported the NFLI through its institutional grants program. Additional funding will be required if NFLI is to be sustained and expanded to: (1) support and expand curriculum efforts at current NFLI programs; (2) provide expanded funding for NSEP/NFLI Fellows to attend flagship programs; (3) increase the number of programs and critical languages covered by NFLI. 4 NATIONAL SECURITY LANGUAGE ACT (H.R. 3676) (Appendix D refers) The National Security Language Act was introduced during the 108 th Congress to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) to encourage early foreign language instruction, including grants to: (1) partnerships of institutions of higher education (IHEs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) for activities relating to foreign language instruction at elementary or secondary schools, with priorities for high-need LEAs and less-commonly taught foreign languages; and (2) IHEs that develop innovative programs for the teaching of foreign languages, with priorities for combining foreign languages with science and technology and for less-commonly taught foreign languages. The proposed Act would accomplish these objectives by: 1. Providing undergraduate student loan forgiveness of up to $10,000 for students who major in a critical need foreign language and are employed as teachers of such language in elementary or secondary schools or by using such language regularly in a Federal agency. 2. Directing the Secretary of Education to: 4 National Defense University, Ibid. 15

24 a. Establish a foreign language education marketing campaign to encourage students at secondary schools and IHEs to study foreign languages, particularly ones less commonly taught and critical to national security. b. Conduct a study to identify foreign language heritage communities and recruit speakers of such critical languages. 3. Amending the David L. Boren National Security Education Act of 1991 to establish an International Flagship Language Initiative with grants to IHEs. H.R has been referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Committee on Intelligence. 5 Outlook is uncertain at present. NATIONAL SECURITY EDUCATION PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2004 (H.R. 4574) (Appendix E refers) - The National Security Education Program Enhancement Act of 2004 was introduced during the 108 th Congress to: 1. Require the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) to transfer specified amounts to the Secretary of Education from Intelligence Community Management (ICM) appropriations to carry out national security education scholarship, fellowship, and grant programs. 2. Revise post-education service obligations for such programs to: a. Allow a delay in the commencement of service obligations. b. Require only a one-year obligation for scholarship recipients. c. Allow service obligations to be served with a variety of Federal agencies. 3. Require the DCI to transfer ICM funds to carry out grant programs for the National Flagship Language Initiative. 4. Amend the David L. Boren National Security Education Act of 1991 to require students receiving training under the Initiative to enter into service agreements with the intelligence community element providing such training or reimburse the United States. 5. Direct the Secretary of Defense to take steps to increase the number of qualified educational institutions receiving Initiative grants. 6. Authorize the Secretary of Defense to award scholarships to U.S. citizens who are native speakers of languages designated as critical and not proficient at a professional level in English to enable them to pursue English studies. 7. Require recipients to enter into service agreements. 8. Require the DCI to transfer ICM funds to carry out such program. H.R has been referred to the Committee on Intelligence and the Armed Services Committee. 6 Outlook is uncertain at present. 5 Library of Congress, Thomas Legislative Information Services, online, January 20,

25 STABILIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION CIVILIAN MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2004 (S. 2127) (Appendix F refers) - The purpose of the Stabilization and Reconstruction Civilian Management Act of 2004 is to provide for the development, as a core mission of the Department of State and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), of an expert civilian response capability to carry out stabilization and reconstruction activities in a country or region that is in, or is in transition from, conflict or civil strife. The Act: 1. Expresses the sense of Congress respecting specified steps to improve stabilization and reconstruction activities. 2. Amends the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to authorize the President to furnish assistance and permit the export of goods and services to assist in stabilizing and reconstructing a country or region that is in, or is in transition from, conflict or civil strife. 3. Authorizes: (1) $100 million for such assistance; and (2) appropriations as necessary to replenish such initial authorization. 4. Amends the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 to direct the Secretary of State to establish within the Department of State an Office of International Stabilization and Reconstruction, to be headed by a Coordinator and sets forth Office functions, including: a. Monitoring political and economic instability, and planning for stabilization and reconstruction responses. b. Developing interagency coordination. c. Identifying appropriate State, local and private sector personnel. d. Coordinating joint military-civilian planning. 5. Authorizes the Secretary of State to establish a Response Readiness Corps of up to 250 personnel and such other personnel as the Secretary may designate from the Department of State and the United States Agency for International Development to provide stabilization and reconstruction activities in foreign countries or regions that are in, or are in transition from, conflict or civil strife. 6. Authorizes the Secretary of State to establish a Response Readiness Reserve of Federal and non-federal personnel to augment the Corps. 7. Amends the Foreign Service Act to authorize the Secretary of State, in cooperation with the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army, to establish a stabilization and reconstruction curriculum for use in programs of the Foreign Service Institute, the National Defense University, and the United States Army War College. 6 Library of Congress, Thomas Legislative Information Services, online, January 20,

26 8. States that service in stabilization and reconstruction operations overseas, membership in the Response Readiness Corps, and education and training in the stabilization and reconstruction curriculum should be considered among the favorable factors for promotion of employees of executive agencies. 9. Authorizes appropriations for personnel, education and training, equipment, and travel costs. S has been referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. Outlook is uncertain at present. An identical bill was introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R Library of Congress, Thomas Legislative Information Services, online, January 20,

27 SECTION 3 FOCUS AND FUNCTIONS OF A NATIONAL SECURITY INSTITUTE SYSTEMS APPROACH TO DEFINING AND IMPLEMENTING A NATIONAL SECURITY INSTITUTE The analysis and design of functional systems, or systems of systems, is commonly accomplished through the application of a systems approach. A systems approach places emphasis on function first, and structure afterwards. In other words, when analyzing, designing, or describing a purposive system, initial emphasis is placed on its goals: what it does, or is supposed to do, and if necessary give secondary attention to the question of how it actually does it. In the case reviewed herein the function is national security and the system, or system of systems, is the mechanism by which those functions are achieved. The U.S. national security apparatus can be viewed as a complicated and multivariate assemblage of primary work groups engaged in sub-activities that are expected to collectively achieve the desired objectives. Optimizing achievement of the overarching goal is accomplished by developing appropriate matches between the needs of each work group and the entire system as a whole in relation to the goal. Conducting a detailed break down of the system into smaller sub-systems and concentrating on what each of the sub-systems contributes to the overall system goals would exceed the scope of this study. Also, the process of reorganizing the federal government would be difficult and perhaps even overwhelming to engineer and enact. However, if the premise is accepted that the national security apparatus warrants improvement, then a logical achievable foundation for creating an environment in which the apparatus can begin the process of self-evaluation, learning, and improvement would be through dedicated research, education, and networking programs that contribute to knowledge and discovery of topics of importance to support more effective coordination and integration of security related activities. Concentrated, comprehensive, and coordinated research, education, and outreach programs that engage the best efforts of the U.S. government, academia, international agencies, and the private sector as they relate to international and domestic security and modern interstate or intrastate conflict are envisioned as core elements of the endeavor required to improve performance of the national security enterprise and evolve into an agile, adaptive effort capable of dealing with any number of possible futures. The necessary endeavor will integrate research and education to support the U.S. government s needs and requirements for sustaining U.S. national security into an uncertain and rapidly changing future. The effort should be structured to assist the U.S. government to: - Understand and anticipate the sources and causes of conflict, the domestic and international consequences of conflict, practical solutions to prevent or mitigate conflict, and sustainable practices to preclude or prevent future conflict. 19

28 - Support the development of a long term national strategy for dealing with all forms of modern interstate and intrastate conflict. - Enhance networking, communication, and coordination among military and civilian resources, domestically and internationally. - Develop future generations of U.S. government leaders who have matured through a common experience of collaborative research and problem-solving, and are prepared to apply those lessons. IDENTIFICATION OF STAKEHOLDERS As a mission-driven organization tasked with integrating and focusing capabilities to address threats to national security, the Department of Defense has a vested interest in improving the functional performance of the national security enterprise in order to respond to the challenges imposed by threats today and in the future. Other key stakeholder organizations with substantial roles in national security and an interest in improving the enterprise include: a. National Security Council b. Department of Homeland Security c. Department of State d. Department of Justice e. Intelligence Agencies Because the scope of efforts to improve the national security enterprise would address pre- and post- conflict situations and events, other stakeholders in the effort would be expected to include the Department of Energy, Department of the Treasury, Department of Commerce, Centers for Disease Control, state and local law enforcement agencies, and national and international emergency relief and response organizations including the American Red Cross, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE), and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), among others. Table 9 identifies some values stakeholders in an effort to improve performance of the national security enterprise would expect to derive. 20

29 Table 9: Value Propositions for National Security Institute Stakeholders. Value DoD DOS DHS Intel Others Broader experience working with civilian agencies X X a Better definition of role in war on terror and conflict X X X X b X Broader understanding of foreign cultures X X X X b X Relearn or reassess the principles of war and doctrine Broader cooperation in conflict dissuasion efforts Improve ability to anticipate and interdict conflicts Improved ability to project resource requirements X X X X b X X X X X b X X X X X b X Enhanced coordination in crisis response X X X X b X a Military intelligence organizations b Military and civilian intelligence organizations CONSIDERED APPROACH Creation of a National Security Institute (NSI) with a mission to identify and mount collaborative, sustained, and innovative research, education, and outreach programs in specific areas of concern to national security with the objective of predicting, anticipating, detecting, preventing, preempting and, if necessary, responding to threats to U.S. national security is a reasonable concept to evaluate as a potentially viable option within the interagency environment of the U.S. government for beginning the process of improving the national security enterprise. Figure 1 depicts the overlapping functions and roles of the NSI as envisioned for this study. 21

30 Research Networking and Collaboration Education Outreach/ Communication Figure 1: Functions and Roles of the National Security Institute The remainder of this study will explore such an approach and seek to identify the agencies that it would serve, the functions it will facilitate, and the challenges that would be encountered in establishing such an institution. As mentioned previously, this study started under the premise that the organization would be referred to as a National Conflict Studies Institute (NCSI) rather than as a NSI. The NCSI title was abandoned early in the study since it did not adequately reflect the scope of the new construct, and to avoid the appearance of establishing a DoD centric organization that may discourage involvement by non-government organizations, the international community, and some factions within academia. The participation of these organizations is considered vital to the success of the endeavor. In the context of the multidisciplinary national defense enterprise, the DoD currently conducts, stimulates, and enables research, education, development, test, evaluation, and timely transition of security related concepts into capabilities for U.S. military forces. Attributes for the success of a National Security Institute would include the following: a. A National Security Institute should incorporate and coordinate existing programs to the extent practicable in order to leverage efforts that are working and to constrain costs in consideration of fiscal realities. b. A National Security Institute should provide a means to network people from government, academic and private sectors. Programs of institutional exchange, training, education, and information sharing are appropriate. Effective networking will enhance communication and mutual understanding among practitioners in key agencies providing opportunities to collaborate more effectively in planning and executing activities related to U.S. national security; facilitate development of coordinated strategies that better define roles and responsibilities; and enable development of an educated workforce that will provide a robust, dedicated, and enduring capability to deal with present and future threats. 22

31 c. A National Security Institute should provide focus for a comprehensive research and education enterprise that is nationwide, and perhaps even global when appropriate. The effort should incorporate, coordinate, and create synergy among the myriad activities under various sponsorships already in place to address national security concerns. Duplication of complimentary efforts that already exist should be avoided. d. A multidisciplinary effort that engages technical, analytical, social, political, legal, economic, medical, and other appropriate disciplines that influence national security. Accordingly, the National Security Institute should facilitate participation of policy, science and technology experts from both government and non-government agencies including academia and the private sector. Also, the focus should be global and involve, when appropriate, international expertise, research, analysis, and related efforts. These organizations, domestic and international, represent significant expertise and broad-based capabilities that should be available to policymakers and practitioners responsible for sustaining U.S. national security. e. A National Security Institute should be mission focused toward long-term strategies for dealing with future conflicts in order to produce predictive and actionable solutions that will enhance national security and to identify specific high-impact activities that provide long term political, economic, and social stability. National Security Institute research efforts, including those conducted by universities, should be linked to specific needs and completed within appropriate time requirements to support national security efforts. f. Issues to be tackled and addressed by the National Security Institute must support a large and diverse customer base of organizations, agencies, and activities. Additionally, the issues will change as the challenges faced by the U.S. evolve. For example, it is appropriate to focus attention on the concentrated terrorist threat outside the U.S. as a means to ensure the security of the U.S., but the scope of the National Security Institute s contribution should be much broader and forward thinking than to solely address current threats from international terrorism. Exploration of opportunities for proactive engagement in regions of strategic importance to U.S. national security would be a worthy area of focus for the National Security Institute. Figure 2 summarizes the key attributes needed for a National Security Institute to successfully enhance performance of the national security enterprise. 23

32 Incorporate and coordinate existing programs to the extent practicable Provide means to network people from government, academic and private sectors Provide focus to a comprehensive nation-wide research and education enterprise Multidisciplinary in context Technical, analytical, social, political, legal, financial, etc Mission focused - predictive and actionable solutions National and International focus Figure 2: Key Attributes for Success of a National Security Institute Additionally, a National Security Institute should exhibit the following enabling characteristics: a. The Institute should have direct access to interagency participants if it is to effectively coordinate education and research efforts. Operation remotely from the interagency environment will relinquish the Institute s role to a secondary one reliant on filtered information sources and without the prestige to influence organizational behavior. b. The Institute should be comprised of people, practices, and organizations with histories of direct support to the interagency. An Institute without such prior experience will likely languish in insignificance due to lack of credibility and perhaps lack of relevance. c. The Institute should contain a cadre with experience working in the interagency environment to ensure their effectiveness. d. The institute should have a staff of available experts with broad-based education and research capabilities relevant to the national security enterprise. e. The Institute s location, structure, and practices should be compatible with the personnel rotation practices of interagency organizations. Compatibility will increase the opportunities for personnel to participate in Institute education and research programs thereby enhancing the benefit to the parent organizations and supporting succession planning. f. The Institute should have the ability to coordinate and direct the work of others in order to enhance its role as a coordinator and integrator of efforts to improve performance of the national security enterprise. 24